Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology

peter.suber's bookmarks 2020-07-12

Summary:

"The rationale for open science is actually simple and straightforward: sharing knowledge and data as early as possible in the research process. To build PPGs [planetary public goods] in times of normalcy as well as planetary crisis, we need open science throughout the entire innovation lifecycle, from research design, data production, and sharing to translation into knowledge-based innovations. Open science is also crucial for critically informed deliberation on veracity of data and emerging knowledge (Bayram et al., 2020; Sclove, 2020). Open science can help all relevant knowledge actors to realize science in a spirit of responsible innovation and build PPGs (Von Schomberg and Hankins, 2019; Von Schomberg, 2019).

Science progresses essentially through knowledge-communication in collaborative research settings (Zhao et al., 2014). Yet, the dominant current practice is to incentivize and reward scientists to do something else: publish as much and as fast as possible with an eye to establishing individual prestige that embeds scientists and science regulators alike in cultures that lack reflexivity, and are laden with self-serving instrumentalism and (overly) competitive science.

Absent open science, publishing activities focusing on quantity over quality take precedence over delivering on social relevance while science becomes self-referential: science is then assessed according to narrow criteria of excellence on which only scientists determine in ways detached from society. These criteria are used as effective arguments to keep societal and ecological interests out of the equation in defense of the “autonomy” of science and their institutions (Benessia et al., 2016; Guston et al., 2009; Holbrook, 2005; Özdemir, 2020a, 2020b2020c; Ravetz, 2016; Sarewitz, 2016). In addition, narrowly framed “excellence”-driven science is enabled under very competitive funding systems and scientists spend a large amount of their time submitting proposals for doing self-referential “excellent” research rather than engaging in a collaborative manner on essential exchanges of knowledge that address PPGs and pressing social needs...."

Link:

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/omi.2020.0118

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags:

oa.new oa.open_science oa.advocacy oa.recommendations oa.incentives

Date tagged:

07/12/2020, 09:20

Date published:

07/12/2020, 05:20